tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1349290550527925310.post8274809500218012697..comments2024-03-15T19:33:28.397-04:00Comments on The Trad: Chino Tasting: Boyer's Best Khakitintinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13652066200071703445noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1349290550527925310.post-86710911070979921292011-09-23T07:08:59.782-04:002011-09-23T07:08:59.782-04:00Boyer has made an error on this one I am sad to sa...Boyer has made an error on this one I am sad to say. The lincs rise is similar to the pants of a 13 year old school girl. Only time I have been truly disappointed by a Boyer recommendation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1349290550527925310.post-37758965022694539092010-07-13T10:38:00.516-04:002010-07-13T10:38:00.516-04:00The rise is definitely low. I just purchased a pa...The rise is definitely low. I just purchased a pair from SteinMart for $35. Seems to definitely be a well made pant, but, yes, low rise.Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03517779638216173050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1349290550527925310.post-31580873127138202972010-05-22T10:39:39.696-04:002010-05-22T10:39:39.696-04:00Tintin, please correct me if I'm wrong, but by...Tintin, please correct me if I'm wrong, but by the '60s men's "khakis" had evolved into something of a sightly low-rise, peg legged, almost jeans-like pant that was not even really khaki colored. They were, by then, almost without exception, a ubiquitous light or bleached tone that today we refer as "stone."<br /><br />I think that's plainly evident not just in the Dirty Dozen action guys clip you posted, but reinforced by the light-colored trousers Steve McQueen wore in The Great Escape. With chukka boots, no less. Period appropriate for WWII (and also '60s cool), but unless McQueen's character managed to scavenge a pair of chukkas from someone in the British 7th Armoured Division Desert Rats...unlikely. And where did he get the sweatshirt?<br /><br />-DBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1349290550527925310.post-7877777286010752532010-05-22T06:09:43.518-04:002010-05-22T06:09:43.518-04:00Peter- You have every right to be critical here. A...Peter- You have every right to be critical here. And I will check with the Robert and Bruce for their own. David Coleman wrote a piece in the NY Times Thursday (5/20) on the hip khaki. Check it out on line.<br /><br />His point (I think) is that the high rise khaki you and I like so much is dead (too "white bread" says Derrick Miller) and buried with the ultra expensive and hip khaki the next big thing. Or, his point was to get 12 hip khaki makers some press. I'm not sure. <br /><br />My goal was to inspect a wide price range and focus on the quality, construction and overall soul of the pant hence the "tasting." While the LINCS pant that won is no iron, the finish on the pant we inspected was amazingly good. In fact, it wasn't until I got a description of the pant from DC Design that I even knew it was no iron. <br /><br />Still, I will follow up with DC on the rise and see if I can't secure a pr to try on. If they're ball-less khakis (TM), I'll let you know.tintinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13652066200071703445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1349290550527925310.post-57904101980011354922010-05-21T23:26:38.883-04:002010-05-21T23:26:38.883-04:00Briefs?! These are not Italian linen trousers, th...Briefs?! These are not Italian linen trousers, they are supposed to be good value trad khakis. No need to change underwear for a pair of pants. I tried both model ##s that you tested (ending in '02 and '03). I tried 33" and 34" (waist was fine on both, slim legs were great, rise was modern BS). I am 6'1, 175, and the rise was short, not regular. Also, fabric was advertised on tag as high-tech, non-iron, blah, blah. <br /><br />Hey, I'm not negative. I loved the test (and love the blog) and followed closely. But I think rise is the most important pant distinction between classic great and modern mediocrity. Khakis (which are otherwise shapeless) are supposed to be worn around the waist, not the hips. You have showed this time and again with the wonderful shots of your dad and others. The Lincs pants sit below the hips and are horribly modern in this regard. <br /><br />Few people can handle a real rise (like worn in the 40s) these days. Hipsters wear their girlfriends' pants and many others have lost their true waist long ago. Your ideal is correct: lean WWII GIs who deservedly walked with a swagger. Not one of whom could have fit their sack in a pair of Lincs.Peter Wilbornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18262676259990186703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1349290550527925310.post-20308184729750205142010-05-21T17:11:38.914-04:002010-05-21T17:11:38.914-04:00Then wear briefs. I do with my linen Borelli trou...Then wear briefs. I do with my linen Borelli trousers. What's the model # of the LINCS pant you bought? The rise on our sample (a 32" waist was more that adequate. I'll even check with DC Design and get the dimensions. <br /><br />Both Bruce and Robert were sensitive to the rise but no one tried anything on. And I sure as hell can't fit into a 32. I'll see if I can't get the judge's sizes from the the the category winners (pretty sure J Press will say no) and see how they do in the real world (if the judges are game). Thanks for the idea.tintinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13652066200071703445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1349290550527925310.post-70750437732096263582010-05-21T16:28:27.769-04:002010-05-21T16:28:27.769-04:00Love the series reviewing khakis. But these pants...Love the series reviewing khakis. But these pants are not good. I agree with all the points made, but the rise is super low. These are slim in the legs -- love that -- but the rise is like a pair of girl's pants. I went from a pair of Bill M2s, and the low rise Lincs (horrible name by the way) revealed one shirt button lower, the last. No way to wear full cut boxers under these.Peter Wilbornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18262676259990186703noreply@blogger.com